believes increasing the number of urban farms in san francisco will have environmental, health, community, and economic benefits. there have been several amendments to the legislation proposed by our allies and the urb urban agricultural community and supervisor chiu is open to discussion about several of these, specifically that value add and pooled products could be sold at urban farms if the potential neighborhood concerns can be fairly addressed. he is open to exploring the proposal that the fencing requirement for urban farms be amended to include green fencing as an option. and we respectfully request your support and thank you for your consideration. commissioner borden: thank you. >> i will provide my presentation and briefly t proposed ordinance seeks to clarify the intensity of the agricultural activity for consolidating the current array of use categories and seeks to

create a new agricultural use category with two subuses of differing intensity to apply throughout all zones districts and create consistency throughout the planning code. currently it cites multiple urban use within different zoning districts and certain use categories are referenced and others are not in different zoning district. the two proposed urban use a neighborhood agricultural and urban industrial agricultural. neighborhood agriculture is the lesser intense use characterized by the following. being less than one acre, having met the physical and operational standards which are, excuse me, a setback of the compost areas if fencing is used, and that it be wood or follow the citywide fencing requirements. it is characterized by the limited use of mechanical farm equipment and that equipment be screened from sight. and that sales of produce grown on the site is restricted from

6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and the higher intensity use and is characterized by the following, being larger than one achor in size and not able to meet that and the unlimited sales and donation and fresh food and the urban use category. and be principally permitted in all zoning districts and urban industrial agricultural requires the zoning districts except for the industrial use districts where it's permitted. i would like to make a note that the neighborhood al cultural use is exempt from neighborhood notification section 311 and 312 except in the eastern neighborhoods mixed use district where there is an introduction of a use that jumps the use categories.

the planning department has received numerous letters and chief concerns with the elimination of the fencing requirement and the change of use fees and allowing the sale of value added goods and produce to be sold at one residential site. the planning department believing eliminating the fencing requirements and the fee requirements would set an undesirable precedent if propoedz ordinance does not obligate the use of a fence. however, should a fence be used, it should comply with the citywide standard set forth in the green landscaping ordinance. regarding fees, all proposals must pay fees in accordance of the planning code and the planning department believes this should remain consistent with the agricultural uses. the planning department believes that allowing the sale of value-added goods and produce grown at multiple sites to be pooled and sold at one residential site would potentially escalate the

residential activity to create a velvet of excessive disturbance. and for the further comment that we have received from the sfpuc and as i mentioned earlier, they will be commenting after my presentation and i would like to take a minute to note the relation of this ordinance with controlled substances and this ordinance does not augment, alter, or elimb gnat any existing -- or eliminate any existing on controlled substances for commercial use or sale which would continue to be reviewed under the planning code as a greenhouse use and will be applied according to the district her in. and commissioners, the planning department recommends the following changes. and it may occur at the following proposed section and limited sales of produce may

occur on otherwise vacant property. and we would like you to read the unlimited donation and not within the dwelling unit. and would modify the setback and one modification that was not in the case report proposes the urban planning code section and currently 102.34 is the mobile food facility with 102.35. and taken together, it strikes the appropriate balance and allowing planning commission discretion in future projects.

with the growth of small scale and permitting the lower intensity neighborhood and agricultural zoning districts and exempting from neighborhood notifications section 311 and 312 and with the directive 29.03 of the local food growth and this concludes the presentation and i will give the floor over to mr. bart groom. >> good afternoon. the sfpuc has worked with mayor's office, planning department, and urban

agriculturaled a voe t cass on water conservation amendments to the ordinance before you. and the sfpuc support. cultural and economic and canning cultural benefits but edible plants are typically high water use plants and they typically consume more water than the landscape or sallow land they replace. and water conservation practices can greatly reduce the amount of water that would be applied in the situations. last december san francisco enacted the water efficient irrigation ordinance which requires that planted area installed after january 21, 2011, that exceed 1,000 square feet to comply with state mandated water allowances and also to meet other water efficient irrigation requirements. the irrigation ordinance already

applies to neighborhood agriculture and urban industrial agriculture as proposed in the ordinance and under the terms of the irrigation ordinance, the spf -- the sfpuc are required prior to issuance of any permit to enable the installation of new planted areas, including those contemplated in this ordinance. the sfpuc suggests that we insert a cross reference to chapter 63 of the administrative code which is the irrigation ordinance. and this serves as a reminder to those seeking to establish an urban agricultural project and to city officials that water efficiency requirements apply and the sfpuc approval is necessary prior to permit issuance. again, this is existing law. the introduction has prompted the water conservation team to

look at ways to streamline the state landscaping documentation process for neighborhood agriculture and our primary concern is to enforce the state maximum applied water allowance which already permits 30% more water for edible plants. the water budget is reasonable and our streamlined compliance would remove requirements for a landscape architect's plans, for detailed list, and other requirements that just don't make sense for neighborhood agricultural. we are looking ing ting to str that and the city attorney said we could do this through administrative fees and we don't need to do rule making but make an administrative determination. the sfpuc is limited in the amount of water we can draw from the regional water supply system and we must reduce the watter that redraw from the regional system by 10 million gallonses

per day by 2018. and any additional water use in san francisco will have to be offset by the use of alternative local water sources such recyclable water, rainwater harvest, gray water, or groundwater as well as additional other water conservation measures. and these amendmentscismly cross refrps -- these amendments simply cross reference existing law and we urge you to make them part of your report to the board of supervisors. commissioner borden: thank you. >> i would like to add one more bit to the presentation. i did receive a number of letters post the packet submission and i would like to present them to you here. commissioner borden: someone from the san francisco urban

agricultural alliance is going to address the commission as well i believe. this is the end of the presentations. >> thank you, commissioners. my name is eli zigas and a co-coordinator and we are a volunteer organization with over 30 member groups and many of whom are in the room or out in the hall. and our supporters who are also here and many of them are wearing green or a sticker like that one i have on. ed our main message coming today is you have seen letters that we and our supporters have sent and to reiterate is we are supportive of the proposal and it is well tailored to san francisco because of the hard work of the planning department and the mayor's off and supervisor chiu's office going through many it racingses of the

draft. we have -- many iterations of the draft. we have proposed three amendments and the fist two are aimed at reducing the barriers to starting a garden. the first is a request to remove or waive permit fees and the second is in the language of fencing to remove the fencing requirement and the third is to expand what gardens can go and they would be allowed to sell value added products and pool from a number of gardens within the city. and coming off the business commission hearing, there are two things immaterialed to impart. one is that we are talking about gardens and we say urban farmers but for the most part it is a scale that is gardens and there aren't many spots in san francisco greater than one acre, so we are talking about gardeners and in a scale that is not usually what we think of when we think of farming.

the second is there are restrictions built in and that would limit the prt in neighborhoods and the planning department's proposal splits it between less than one acre and greater than one acre and is important to keep in mind there is only so much produce you can grow on one acre during the year. i would be the first to say you can grow a lot, but not a flood of produce and just so much that can be produced. the last thing that i would like to do is say that you will likely hear a lot of comments on the proposal today. some will be about this kind of regulation, that kind of regulation and some about the amendments we propose. and more than anything i hope we can move this forward to the board of commissioners and there is interesting questions and i hope we can resolve them through

the hearing today. and the question there of alternative language on fencing and value added goods and i am happy to talk about those, i think some of the sponsor cans talk about those as well. commissioner borden: as we begin the discussion after public comment, we may ask one of you to come back up here for more insight on this discussion. it is possible we will ask for more of your input or someone from the mayor's office or some of the other agencies. >> we look forward it to. and again, i hope we can move this to the board. thank you. commissioner borden: thank you. i just wanted to mention that it's -- i am looking at a huge pile of cards and there is no one among you who is opposed to it. i don't know if there is anyone in the audience who is opposed to this that was going to speak in opposition. i don't mean to put you on the spot or intimidate you in the crowd, but i thought that -- i don't see any. so i think what i will do is

limit public comment to two minutes since there is so much overwhelming support. and also what we are in the habit of doing is asking those who are in support of this to stand up and you still have the option to speak and if you want to, but at least you give us a sense of who is supporting it out there. someone said ask them to raise their pitch fork. i guess i will ask you to stand up and show sport those of you who are in favor of this. you are not forfeiting your right to speak, but we wanted a sense of -- okay. thank you. and you can clap for this if you want at this time. usually we're pra breaking all rules, but i have never seen overwhelming support in such a long time and it is pleasant to see. i'm going to call names and if you want to come up, feel free,

and we're going to limit comment to two minutes. >> thank you, commissioners for wellmenting the enthusiasm today. i run a business in my mission district and we sent you a letter in support of the proposal and the production traveling from farm to plate as people like to say. and any of us working to educate the community feel good about how food begins and for our goals the emergence of the sustainable enterprises and

really clearly support and pushing for the greening agenda and the diversification of the green business community and we are really excited about the prospects of for-profit bidses in the agricultural sector merging in san francisco and i do want to encourage consideration a couple of the amendments particularly the fencing and sort of the ag activities that could happen on site that really would stand to support the unique economics of agriculture in much the same way as agriculture is supported in other policy and other context. and having had some experience working in federal and environmental policy, i recognize the pitfalls of creating too many cut arounds for particular industry and i think that the amendments have been presented around fencing and value added products and pooling are worth consideration. thanks very much for your time. commissioner borden: thank you.

i'll just keep calling cards. >> thank you, commissioners. i am with bay localize that promotes resilient, sustainable communities and we are extremely proud and to join with san francisco urban ag alliance in support of the forward-looking ordinance and we think is going to allow for more beautiful gardens and green landscapes and urban farming throughout the city. we want to commend you for considering this today. just want to make a few comments about the context in which we're living with our food system. today's petroleum-based long

distance transport food system is based on a lie t false assumption that we can burn 10 calories of fossil fuels for every calorie we eat. it is based bonn the false assumption that we can continue to rely on fossil fuel-powered trucks to ship our mealses an average of 1,500 miles a day from farm to plate and perhaps worst of all it's based on the false asuchgs that a system can provide the communities with anything resembling healthy food. this ordinance, while no silver bullet, takes a vitally important step towards making our food system more honest and more resilient and economically viable for entrepreneurs and communities throughout san francisco. the movements for urban agriculture and food justice like you can see with the presence of everyone here is spreading like wildfire. so we urge you to support this ordinance and to help ensure

that san francisco remains ahead of the curve. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> i have been a resident of san francisco since 1980 and attorney by trade and practicing law in san francisco for 23 years but here more in my capacity as a beekeeper. i have been a beekeeper since 2006 and a past president of the san francisco beekeepers association and last year i founded a new nonprofit called san francisco bee cause and we are a member of the san francisco urban agricultural alliance. i am in support, we are in support of the ordinance with some exceptions. specifically request changes to the words used in the ordinance. there is a basic rules that courts apply when interpreting statutes and when of them is that no word is superfluous.

each word has an intended meaning and also if the word is not specifically defined by the statue it, it is given a common sense meaning. when i looked at the ordinance from the ice of a beekeeper, i saw certain words that didn't seem to jive with my understanding of the commission's intent to have this ordinance to governor plant. based foods as opposed to anything derived from or is an animal as is governed by the article one of the san francisco health code. specifically there are words such as food, fresh food, farms, and products. those words are not defined. and when you compare them to horticultural crops which i propose is the consistent term that should be used in the ordinance, it does raise the question what do you mean by food?

i took a look at the dictionary today and food is any material, plant or animal origin, containing nutrients taken in by living organism to support life. farm is also including the concept of animals and -- [bell ringing] awe >> and i have some amendments to offer. tom, i called your name and then andreas. >> thank you, president olague, members of the commission. executive director of livable city and we are here to speak in support of this urban agriculture ordinance and excited that it is coming forward. and feeling a little too restrictive and one is the fencing requirement. the ornamental fencing or the wooden fencing is treating this

like it's a vehicle use area or something that you would want to screen from view, but what we're talking about looking at is plant. and they would be nice. if you were to plant these same plants in the front yard, you wouldn't need to screen them. we feel like the fencing requirement could be a real impediment to people being able to put this in and a lot of the uses will be temporary. and it feels more restrictive than you want on the construction site. the idea that the enclosure should be optional and the ornamental fencing which is expensive to put in isn't necessary and obviously the fencing would need to meet building code and if you don't want someone to steal your tomatoes, you'll have to have good fencing. and the other is the question of the produce being sold and fairly restrictive language about the stuff that is grown on that site. and considering that this is really we're talking about selling food and a lot of neighborhoods have the food

deserts. they don't have places to buy fresh foond and we think being less restrict sieve better than being more restrictive. could you pool produce from several sites? that should be aloud or value add and we use the produce to make jam and put some restrictions on it and a use size 200 square feet so it doesn't become a grocery store or a supermarket and put in restriction on alcohol so it doesn't become a liquor store, but the idea that it could sell produce grown there and there is no harm and a great deal of being flexible about the food sales. and we need to have more outlets for healthy food so creating more rather than fewer seems better. and it is a good proposal and something long overdue.

and to loosen it up to make it more viable. thank you. commissioner borden: thank you. >> i'm bud smith with transition san francisco. and of course, i am here to speak in favor of the proposed ordinance with the amendments suggested by the urban agricultural alliance. i wanted to echo what some of the other people said about the small scale of what will be done when considering fees and alliance from people who are not impactful or take that much resource from the city and county. and i am with the transition san francisco group, a member of the committee, and transition san francisco is part of the transition towns movement around worldwide movement around localization and that involves so many aspects and two of the main things we get involved in

are the earn couragement of -- the encouragement of growing food locally and interfacing with local government. the transition to towns movement started in the u.k. and there are a couple of local councils which are actually adopting elements of transitions aagain sa as their own for -- agenda as their own for governing the talents and cities. and looking forward to engaging with you on this and other efforts and to show part of what we hope will happen more and more intensely with the ordinance in place, we're currently working ining on thet for 2011 and one of the two main focuss is an effort called kitchen gardens that came from the perma culture guild and it is basically an institutionalized form that is the perma list and you invite a bunch of happy people and they do around the yard if you are fortunate to have one and even the inside space and help you understand what plant wills grow

there and what food and herbs and other benefits you might hope to get from different plants and combinations and regime of plants. there is a lot of technology and practice. i am going back thousands of years. [bell ringing] >> thank you. >> thank you for your attention. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am susie paladino, the program director for garden environment and a member of the san francisco urban agriculture alliance. we support the urban agricultural zoning proposal as well as the recommended amendments outlined by the san francisco urban agricultural alliance. i mept for the environment that supports the proposed zoning proposal. if the proposed zoning proposal is approved today, the city will be providing the critical court necessary for many trained individuals to find and create jobs in san francisco that bring locally grown food even closer

to our table. starting for the environment is san francisco's first demonstration garden founded nearly over 20 years ago. we provide direct hands-on education to 3,000 san francisco residents, youth, and adults each year at our half acre organic teaching garden. annually through our gardening and composting educator training program, we accept and train 30 san francisco residents in organic gardening and urban composting products and examining sustainable urban agricultural and food security in san francisco. these students receive comprehensive training and graduate from the program with an earnest desire for a place for their skills and enthusiasm to flour niche a commercial and noncommercial setting. and the city is addressing the needs of the changing food system and support iing job opportunities. and i applaud the planning to

expand the potential for urban gardening and if passed today, the proposal and the recommended change wills provide unprecedented support for urban gardening, support as gardeners and farmers need to participate in the green jobs economy. thank you for your time. >> madam president and commissioners, i am david hooper and i come to speak on behalf of the new mission terrace improvement association. and in support of the effort for urban agriculture. a year ago the property owner of the cotter street loss that is now the little city garden and the principles or little city garden came to the neighborhood association and asked if we would work with them towards the goal and unanimous answer was that we would accept them. and it was well worth our